The signing of Trump’s tariff order immediately after the conclusion of the Muscat talks demonstrated that Washington remains addicted to a policy of pressure and intimidation as a means of forcing Iran’s submission. Although the Oman meeting was accompanied by positive diplomatic signals, the imposition of 25 percent tariffs and new sanctions on 17 Iranian individuals and entities conveyed a clear message: the United States does not view negotiations as a path to mutual understanding, but as a tool of cognitive warfare to deceive and test Iran’s red lines. This behavior is a continuation of the familiar “good cop/bad cop” scenario between Washington and Tel Aviv—an approach designed to combine negotiation and threat in order to impose maximalist demands.
Intermittent Attrition: A Tool of Perceptual Coercion
The tariff order continues a strategy the United States has developed over the past two decades to weaken the resolve of Iranian decision-makers—a policy that simultaneously targets the economy, social psychology, and security calculations. By relying on economic pressure, Trump seeks to push Iran’s domestic environment toward crisis and drive policymakers into strategic miscalculation. At the same time, military signaling—such as the presence of the CENTCOM commander in Oman and US and Israeli media narratives about attack options—serves as a complement to cognitive warfare aimed at amplifying fear and hollowing out Iran’s resistance. This gradual attrition strategy step by step exploits the negotiating environment to impose missile-related and regional demands.
Disrupting the Playing Field of the New Global Order
Trump’s behavior cannot be assessed as merely anti-Iranian; rather, it is part of a broader American design to disrupt the process of forming a multipolar global order. Confronted with China, Russia, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, Washington lacks the ability to balance directly. As a result, by targeting countries such as Iran, Venezuela, Brazil, and India, it seeks to upend the global playing field. Sanctions on Iran’s oil sector are, in practice, an effort to damage China’s energy supply chain, while punitive tariffs against Iran’s economic partners constitute an indirect pressure ring on emerging powers. This model of perceptual deterrence reflects the hegemon’s struggle against the world’s shift toward multipolarity.
Resistance Diplomacy: Iran’s Strategic Response
By preserving its core frameworks and emphasizing its nuclear, regional, and security rights, Iran has effectively thwarted this project. Tehran’s decision to continue negotiations while remaining prepared for a decisive response has pushed Washington away from the military option and back toward dialogue. Under such conditions, any imposed agreement would signify not compromise but a weakening of national deterrence. Iran has concluded that negotiation under threat yields no results and that the cost of “perceptual surrender” is higher than the cost of any military confrontation. Smart resistance is now not merely a tactical stance, but part of a broader confrontation with the US- and Israeli-led project to disrupt the emerging new global order.
NOURNEWS